TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A), has erred in ignoring the contention in the remand report that no submissions have been made by assessee as regards sundry creditors Chetna Oil Trading Co., Shri Shyam Products and Bhavani Silicate Industries relating to whom amount of Rs. 3,45,23,014/- , Rs. 26,19,800/- and Rs. 55,00,837/- respectively had been added for the reason that reply was not received from the said sundry creditors in response to notice issued u/s 133(6) to verify its transactions with the assessee. (iv)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A), has erred in ignoring the contention in the remand report that the only submission made as additional evidence filed during appellate proceedings in respect of sundry creditor, Yogi Industries was copy of the Return of Income which was not sufficient compliance considering that the addition made in respect of the said party amounting to Rs. 1,66,31,513/- was on account of non receipt of reply in response to notice issued u/s 133(6) issued to it. (v)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice dated 19.02.2015 neither the parties from whom the purchases were made nor the assessee could prove the genuineness of the transaction held between the parties and the assessee. The onus lied upon the assessee could not be discharged by the assessee in a given time frame despite the opportunity notice issued from this office. The details of those parties whose genuineness could not be proved and which stands unexplained are as below:- Sr No. Name of the Party Section Date of issue Amount involved Present status 1 M/ Shri Shyam Products 133(6) 10.02.2015 26,19,800 Reply not received. 2 M/s Bhawani Silicate Industries 133(6) 10.02.2015 44,00,837 Reply not received. 3 M/s Vikas Oil Proteins 133(6) 10.02,2015 3,00,02,928 Reply not received. 4 M/s Yogi Industries 133(6) 10.02.2015 1,66,31,513 Returned unserved on 20.02.2015 6 M/s Om Industries 133(6) 10.02.2015 60,24,568 Reply not received 7 Arihant Enterprises 133(6) 10.02.2015 19,36,884 Returned unserved on 23.02.2015 M/s Chetna Oil Trading 133(6) 10.02.2015 3,45,23,014 Reply not received. M/s Maruti Packers 133(6) 10.02.2015 38,10,667 Reply received on 27.02.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, their ledger account and the bank statements for payments. I did not fund any reason not to accept the confirmations from these parties. 9.3 Further, it is interesting to note that the AO has accepted the genuineness of these parties in the appellant's own case in the subsequent AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. Therefore, keeping in view the consistency and the fact that the appellant has submitted necessary confirmations to prove the genuineness of the parties, I did not find any reason not to accept the transactions as genuine, in view of the same Ground No. 3 is allowed. 6. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We have also gone through the precedents relied upon. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) relied upon the orders of the A.O. and also the points raised in the grounds of appeal. 8. Per contra, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that all the necessary documents and confirmations were already provided before the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that these could not be provided to the A.O. as very short time was granted. He submitted that all the additional evidences were re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reply was filed was erroneous. (Refer page 59 to 60 of the paperbook) *The AO had added the purchases made by the Assessee from Shri Shyam Products on the ground that the genuineness of the transaction was not proved either by the Assessee or by the party. *Further, the AO in the remand report has observed that as on 31 March 2012, there was no balance in the sundry debtors account in the books of Shri Shyam Products in the name of the Assessee in respect of purchases made by the Assessee. In this regard, it was submitted that since all the amounts were paid, there was be no outstanding debit balance in the books of Shri Shyam Products. *The Assessee had made these payments for the purchases during year and same could be verified from the copy of ledger account for the FY 2011-12 and extracts of bank statements (Refer page 71 to 80 of the paperbook) *In addition to above, assessee requested the supplier to share the documents which were directly shared to the office of AO. In this regard the supplier had shared only the Form VAT-10 (Refer page 61 to 70 of the paperbook) showcasing the total sales made during the year, to prove the genuineness. The other documents filed were how....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edgement stating that the Assessee has made purchases from Yogi Industries thereby showcasing the genuineness of the party. (Refer page 129 to 134 of the paperbook) The ledger accounts and the extract of the bank statement substantiating the purchases and payments have actually been made by the Assessee. (Refer page 135 to 150 of the paperbook) In this regard, the contention of department that submission of only return of income was not sufficient and non-receipt of reply to notice under section 133(6) of the Act is grossly erroneous, as the registered AD and reply letter by the party directly submitted to the AO clearly suggested that the notice was duly served on the party and also has been complied with in due time. Accordingly, the claim of AO that the notice was unserved is baseless. Further, the your Honours would appreciate the fact that return of income can be filed only by an entity having a valid PAN and would suffice to prove the genuineness of the party alongwith the bank statements showcasing payments made through authorized channel and hence the contention of the department to reject the party on the ground that only return of income cannot suffice to prove genuin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AO by way of registered AD clearly suggested the claim of the AO to be false. *The ledger accounts and the extract of the bank statement substantiate that the purchases and payments have actually been made by the Assessee. (Refer page 231 to 268 of the paperbook) Further, the assessee had requested the supplier to share the document which were directly shared to the office of AO. In this regard the supplier has shared the following documents: *Copy of letter filed with AO for intimating submissions in the name of Chetna Traders Pvt Ltd (Refer page 225 to 226 of the paperbook) *Copy of confirmation i.e. ledger account of assessee in books of Chetna Traders Pvt Ltd. (Refer page 227 to 229 of the paperbook) *Copy of letter sent by AO under section 133(6} of the Act (Refer page 230 of the paperbook) *Copy of tracking details of reply submitted by Chetna Traders Pvt Ltd to AO (Refer page 269 to 270 of the paperbook) In this regard, your Honours would appreciate that all the above documents filed in the paperbook which were received from the supplier, on assesse's request, were already available with the AO during the assessment proceedings. 13.Maruti Packers Maruti Packers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led by various parties. 16.Accordingly, the Assessee was unable to comment upon the details directly submitted by the parties to the AO. Additional evidence can be filed before the CITfA) which was not available at time of assessment 17.The AO in the remand report had stated that the assesse was not entitled to produce additional evidence before the CIT(A) on the ground that sufficient opportunities were provided to the assesse during the assessment proceedings and additional evidence could have been filed during the assessment. However, it is submitted that the AO had issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act on 19 February 2015 and had given only 6 working days to verify the genuineness of the claim. In this regard, your Honours would appreciate the fact that no sufficient time was given to the assesse to comply with the notice issued and hence all the relevant evidences were required to be filed during the hearing before CIT(A) as additional evidences. - - 18. In this regard, we wish to place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Prabhavati Shah (231 ITR 1) (Refer page 357 to 362 of legal paperbook) wherein it has been held that where the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d sales tax was paid thereupon and payments to party were made by account payee cheques, addition on account of bogus purchases was not justified. 25.Further, the jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay high court in case of Nikunj Ex imp Enterprises (372 ITR 619) (Refer page 371 to 373 of legal paperbook) it was held that that if payment was made through banks and books of accounts of assesse was not rejected no addition could be made by treating purchases as bogus. 26.Further reliance is also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that where assessee had filed ledger copies, bank statements etc. to establish genuineness for purchases, AO was not justified in doubting the said genuineness and made addition under section 69C of the Act. *Mahesh K Shah (184 TTJ 702)(Mum ITAT) (Refer page 431 to 437 of legal paperbook) *Carat Lane Trading (P) Ltd (ITA No. 213 of 2017)(Chennai ITAT) (Refer page 438 to 444 of legal paperbook) *Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (256 Taxman 213) (SC) Where AO has not made any further enquiry to ascertain the genuineness of transactions, no addition can be made 27.The assesse wishes to submit that in the given case, the AO has not made any ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing decisions wherein it was held that as the facts of the case remain the same through different assessment years, mode of assessment cannot be changed without reasons in view of the principle of consistency and accordingly, no disallowance is warranted in the instant year: *Radha Saomi Satsang v CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) (Refer page 472 to 489 of legal paperbook) *CIT v Berger Paints (266 ITR 99 (SC)) *CIT v Neo poly Pack (245 ITR 492 (Del)) *UOI v Kuomidini Narayan Dalai and Another (249 ITR 219 (SC) *UOI v Satish Panna Lal Shah (249 ITR 221 (SC) *CIT v J.K. Charitable Trust (308 ITR 161 (SC) (Refer page 483 to 489 of legal paperbook) 35.Further, the Income tax department functions as one unit and its stand is identical matters cannot be different merely because officers dealing with the two files are different. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of jurisdictional Bombay High Court in case of Datta Mahendra Shah (378 ITR 304) (Refer page 478 to 489 of legal paperbook) Prayer 36. In view of the above submissions and various judicial precedents, we request your Honours to uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the department's appeal. 10. Upon careful co....